This will be the first nanog that I was planning to attend. The February time frame will conflict with another obligation I have as well. I have -NO- problem with attending nanog over Good Friday. Us network guys aren't supposed to have lives anyway, are we? ;) | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder@accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 | ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:59:15 -0500 From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> To: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen@vii.com> Cc: "William B. Norton" <wbn@merit.edu>, nanog@home.merit.edu Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change This date also precludes my attending, but what the heck. Can't please everyone, I suppose. :-) - paul At 01:16 PM 11/25/96 -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, William B. Norton wrote:
Hi all -
Thank you to those who pointed out that Friday March 28 is Good Friday.
We have worked with PacBell to move the NANOG 9 meeting up to Monday and Tuesday February 10th and 11th. The location is the same: The Grand Hyatt in San Francisco.
Wooo there.... After already ordering my airline tickets etc.... I think we should still have it as planned.
Christian
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Derek Elder wrote:
This will be the first nanog that I was planning to attend. The February time frame will conflict with another obligation I have as well. I have -NO- problem with attending nanog over Good Friday.
Us network guys aren't supposed to have lives anyway, are we? ;)
I can't make it to this one, but were I planning on attending, I could not go on Good Friday. Most of us don't have lives, but some of us do have that ol' time religion. Good decision not to have it on Good Friday. __ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804
heh..about the only praying I've done in the last couple years is to ye ole god of Solaris with my ritual of "Please don't crash! Please don't crash!!" :*) Back to the subscribed topic of the day.... Will there be a discusion about the route reflector idea that has been kicked around at Feb. NANOG? We will be actively chasing multiple peering agreements in the 1st quarter and this info would be invaluable. | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder@accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 | On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Derek Elder wrote:
This will be the first nanog that I was planning to attend. The February time frame will conflict with another obligation I have as well. I have -NO- problem with attending nanog over Good Friday.
Us network guys aren't supposed to have lives anyway, are we? ;)
I can't make it to this one, but were I planning on attending, I could not go on Good Friday. Most of us don't have lives, but some of us do have that ol' time religion.
Good decision not to have it on Good Friday.
__ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804
Perhaps a BOF-type thing? Since it's not hard to *do*, the question is: What do people want? And dinner or a room where people can talk more easily than at the meeting might be better than taking time during the NANOG presentations. Avi
heh..about the only praying I've done in the last couple years is to ye ole god of Solaris with my ritual of "Please don't crash! Please don't crash!!" :*)
Back to the subscribed topic of the day....
Will there be a discusion about the route reflector idea that has been kicked around at Feb. NANOG? We will be actively chasing multiple peering agreements in the 1st quarter and this info would be invaluable.
| Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder@accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |
Route reflecting sounds like a good topic - could I interest any of you in presenting on it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh@merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Derek Elder wrote:
heh..about the only praying I've done in the last couple years is to ye ole god of Solaris with my ritual of "Please don't crash! Please don't crash!!" :*)
Back to the subscribed topic of the day....
Will there be a discusion about the route reflector idea that has been kicked around at Feb. NANOG? We will be actively chasing multiple peering agreements in the 1st quarter and this info would be invaluable.
| Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder@accessus.net accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 |
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Derek Elder wrote:
This will be the first nanog that I was planning to attend. The February time frame will conflict with another obligation I have as well. I have -NO- problem with attending nanog over Good Friday.
Us network guys aren't supposed to have lives anyway, are we? ;)
I can't make it to this one, but were I planning on attending, I could not go on Good Friday. Most of us don't have lives, but some of us do have that ol' time religion.
Good decision not to have it on Good Friday.
__ Todd Graham Lewis Linux! Core Engineering Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com (800) 719 4664, x2804
Route reflecting sounds like a good topic - could I interest any of you in presenting on it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh@merit.edu
I would be willing to present, though as I said I think a separate meeting to see what people really want is needed. I think the issues are: o (Briefly) The politics and technology of peering o Easier peering between multiple parties: MLPA o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time involved in the setup? o Why might the RA not be the best tool - or why might it be? o Possible goal: o Participants sign a contract expressing a desire to peer with anyone else signing the contract (not exclusively) through a route-reflecting box. o You can only offer routes for you and "your customers" via this. No partial transit to specific people can be offered. o Boxes at each interesting exchange point that people can then peer with to effect the agreement. One or two Cisco 2501s would work fine, but RA-type boxes which can "hide" their ASs in the middle might be interesting as well (Peter Lothberg arguments about BGP not being designed to 'work that way' possibly put aside). o Filtering: o Box-side filtering to enforce sanity? o Concerns o Who's going to run the thing? o Network stability? o What happens to control bad neighbors? Or, perhaps a separate mailing list is needed in the interim to allow people to discuss the issue without boring uninterested members of the nanog list... Avi
o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time involved in the setup?
Peering is a business relationship; such relationships take time to establish. I don't see any way to get the people time out of it. --asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)
o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time involved in the setup?
Peering is a business relationship; such relationships take time to establish. I don't see any way to get the people time out of it. --asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)
There are (now) numerous smaller providers who have a 'peer-with-me' attitude. And they all, in particular, want to peer with each other. At least, that's what I heard at the last NANOG. As such, it would save them time to be able to peer with one box and not have to change anything on their end to get peering with other willing parties. I don't think much of the idea of groups getting together to buy transit to other exchange points or from one provider for the group; that way seems way too treacherous to me. I'm not saying that Net Access would use this; at least, not without heavy AS-path filtering. But I think that many others would, especially those subsets that are at MAE-East or MAE-West to pick up regional connectivity in addition to whatever national connectivity they can. Avi
As such, it would save them time to be able to peer with one box and not have to change anything on their end to get peering with other willing parties
Sounds to me like the RS - set up peering with the RS & add the appropriate lines to your inet-rtr object & you are suddenly getting routes from everyone similarly configured. It sounds to me like what you want is already there. --asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)
As such, it would save them time to be able to peer with one box and not have to change anything on their end to get peering with other willing parties
Sounds to me like the RS - set up peering with the RS & add the appropriate lines to your inet-rtr object & you are suddenly getting routes from everyone similarly configured.
It sounds to me like what you want is already there. --asp@partan.com (Andrew Partan)
I was going to discuss that - it can be done with the RS, but some people have expressed an interest in a different approach. Avi
participants (5)
-
Andrew Partan -
Avi Freedman -
Derek Elder -
Susan R. Harris -
Todd Graham Lewis